Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Just something to ponder and share
I have deleted my original post, having read Jason's reply.
Although there was no reference in the text to eugenics, creationist theory etc, I would not want it thought that I was in any way wishing to be connected with that kind of thought.
Never mind. Another potentially interesting discussion understandable to ordinary mortals bites the dust. At least this thread will be short and the posts not too long either.
Although there was no reference in the text to eugenics, creationist theory etc, I would not want it thought that I was in any way wishing to be connected with that kind of thought.
Never mind. Another potentially interesting discussion understandable to ordinary mortals bites the dust. At least this thread will be short and the posts not too long either.
0
Comments
[Now that should stir something up, KW]
I was only trying to follow the "gee-ing our site up" request with something which included the text in question, didn't involve obscure writers who might not be known to most of us and didn't come across as too complicated or long-winded for most people to be bothered reading.
But then I didn't have the life history of the writer to hand. Just the text that someone sent me in the misguided hope that it might be of interest.
Personally, I thought that if the word "God" were substituted for "moral guidance" and "prayer" for "philosophical debate / discussion", it might actually have something to say, but I realise I was wrong. And for that I am grateful - I am only here to learn.
I don't think you were wrong, KW, dearest sister seeker. This is a crucial aspect of the debate. Just look at us, here. This is not some hard-line anti-theist/deist group, although we often find strong 'anti' words written.
I must confess that membership of NB has helped me enormously to penetrate deeper and deeper into the paradox of the Mystery. My basic belief remains: that both the atheists and the absolutist 'definitions' have got it wrong. 'Believers' give lip-service to ineffability and then make the Mystery effable (does that word exist?) Many of the conversations and debates have informed my thinking and writing, to say nothing of helping me in the 'spiritual journey' support work that I still do.
Joseph Campbell's wonderful series on the mythologies is entitled The Masks of God. Masks! Back in the far past, I did a theatre workshop in Stratford where we used masks. It was a revelation! Masks have a life of their own, apparently independent of the wearer. What an image of God!
We need to understand even the most repellent ideas. Nothing of the human should be unknown to us (one there for you, Jason) so even the Josep Fitzls or Rose Wests of this world have to be within our compassion. And compassion is informed by the idea that, behind and beyond the horrors, there lives a Potential, a Possibility which takes on masks called 'soul' or 'Christ/Buddha nature' or 'that which is of God'. We have to find a safe way through the thickets of their ideas and we can't do that by turning away. How do we find our way behind their masks if we don't engage with them?
Daniels have to go into dens of lions. Siddharthas have to meet Mara face-to-face.
Actually, the very first couple of paragraphs of that article spoke to me very deeply because I used to be offended when people wished me Merry Christmas, assuming that I would celebrate it. OK, I still think one shouldn't make assumptions about anyone in any context but I may have mellowed with age and now I think that wishing anybody a Happy Anything can only be to the good. After all - if I lived on another planet and they celebrated Plink Day and belted each other with mud pies ... well why not?
Know thine enemy ... and to know if it really is an enemy, you must know them. And to combat that enemy you must know them inside out.
Hi All,
I've been struggling to understand what's being discussed in this thread. I followed the link and found a short piece by a Jewish guy who (despite being Jewish) doesn't get offended when people wish him a merry Christmas. He seems to be a 'big tent' theist with the emphasis more on God than the nit-picking detail the 'little' theists squabble over.
Reading other posts, I get the impression he's a radical anti-intellectual creationist - a real drag for Americans who seem to have more than their fair share of them. Why not ship them out to Iran? I'm sure they'd enjoy themselves much more than they imagine... lots in common.
Well, in any case I don't mind Christmas. I am always aware that the Jungian archetype of the old bearded man harks back to Odin, who visited Middle Earth in this guise in the season of Yule. As the icy wind numbs my skin, the Proto-Germanic winter runes are in my thoughts; Haglaz, Isaz, Naudiz and the eagerly awaited Jēra - the fire in the ice - the chandali.
The Christians just nicked it, that's all. Like Easter, it's not theirs. So why not wish them in return, a happy Yuletide.
No, I do not think that Ben Stein is a "radical intellectual creationist," even though he has said some very strong things against the theory of evolution. I was just disappointed with his "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust" (Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed).
Jason
Well, I think that it is important to address these kinds of issues whenever they arise. I am sure that nobody connects you to "that kind of thought," and I think that we should never be afraid to speak our mind regarding these kinds of issues. The fact is, there was widespread state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization, euthanasia, and in some cases, genocide connected with the eugenics movement. It is something that we should not bury but bring to light so that younger generations are less apt to repeat such mistakes in the future, especially in the name of science.
In addition, I do not see anything wrong with intelligent design (i.e., creationism) in and of itself. Like others ideas (I hesitate to call it a theory as its main hypothesis is ultimately untestable) regarding the beginning of the universe, it seeks to explore how it all began from a deistic point of view. My only objection to creationism is when it is packaged as a scientific theory that has, or can be, tested and confirmed. I realize this thread did not go in the direction you thought it might, especially considering the subject matter it raised, but I think that it was interesting nonetheless.
Jason
Spot on, Jason! If only we educated people to understand the place and importance of myth, the whole creation/evolution debate would move away from the sort of aggression so often displayed.
Unfortunately we have recently seen in the UK the dismissal of an eminent scientist who happened also to be a clergyman. Michael Reiss had to resign from his post as director of education at the Royal Society for suggesting that teachers should treat creationism as a 'world view', which I interpret to be a less inflammatory term for what I call 'myth'. He wanted teachers to address the questions in an intelligent rather than a dismissive way. What could be more sensible? Any of us who have taught just about any subject know that the young (and the older as well) are 'infected' with all sorts of strange ideas about the world. The task of the teacher should be to lead the person from the erroneous view to the accurate one. A good teacher of English will be prepared to debate the relative merits of Shakespeare and, say, the lyrics of Metallica. A music teacher can get great value out of comparing and contrasting musical styles.
We accept that people have inherently erroneous ideas about the world-out-there. It's in the nature of perception and interpretation. The result is that we make up 'stories' for ourselves. We ascribe human characteristics to the inanimate, giving fundamental particles names, personalising natural forces. And we do it because we have no other choice - language is a map of a view of a territory that we never fully grasp.
What I find distasteful is the extremism where each 'side' of the debate try to deny the other any value in their 'story'. That I would argue for the greater truth of the evolutionary model of human arising and for modern cosmology over 6 day creationism or, even, a quasi-human intelligent designer is my ';story'. And, at the same time, by listening with respect to the other 'stories', I can discern the gaps in my own.
I truly believe that, in 500 years, this debate will be seen as futile as the Iota Subscript in Saint John's Gospel which caused thousands of Byzantine deaths and the Great Schism! Today we can only wonder at people whoi thought it so important.
What I really love about modern physics and evolutionary biology is that the picture does not stay the same. The story keep changing, particularly as we push our understanding of the early universe back to the first minutes and as new hominid and hominoid fossils appear. What I learned about evolution and cosmology at school in the 1950s has become risible in many aspects - it was, however, the best available at the time. It seems that every week we have a new episode of the 'story', full of surprises and coups de theatre. It's the best serial around.
So, he redresses this straw-man hypothesis with an appeal to religious sentiment. There have been plenty of 'linch mob' Christians who know nothing of "science" but 'know' that their beloved Jesus died on the cross at the hands of Jews.
I wonder if he imagines his 'one God' brotherly theistic sentiment would help him if those dudes were kicking his door in.
"Aye, there's the rub!"
Palzang
Wedges have thin ends.
Palzang